GOP Moves to Declassify Clarke Testimony
1 hour, 12 minutes ago Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo!
By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent
WASHINGTON - In a highly unusual move, key Republicans in Congress are seeking to declassify testimony that former White House terrorism adviser Richard Clarke gave in 2002 about the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Friday.
Frist said the intent was to determine whether Clarke lied under oath — either in 2002 or this week — when he appeared before a bipartisan Sept. 11 commission and sharply criticized President Bush (news - web sites)'s handling of the war on terror.
"Until you have him under oath both times you don't know," Frist said.
One Republican aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the request had come from House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Rep. Porter Goss, the chairman of the House intelligence committee.
The request was the latest evidence of a counterattack against Clarke, who has criticized Bush both in a new book and in his appearance before the bipartisan commission on Wednesday.
In his testimony, Clarke said that while the Clinton administration had "no higher priority" than combatting terrorists, Bush made it "an important issue but not an urgent issue" in the eight months between the time he took office and the Sept. 11 attacks.
Clarke also testified that the invasion of Iraq (news - web sites) had undermined the war on terror.
The request for declassification applies to Clarke's appearance in July 2002 before a meeting of the intelligence committees of both the House and Senate.
No immediate information was available on how the declassification process works, but one GOP aide said the CIA (news - web sites) and perhaps the White House would play a role in determining whether to make the testimony public.
Frist disclosed the effort to declassify Clarke's testimony in remarks on the Senate floor, then talked with reporter. He said he personally didn't know whether there were any discrepancies between Clarke's two appearances.
Without mentioning the congressional Republicans' effort, White House spokesman Scott McClellan continued the administration's criticism of Clarke on Friday.
"With every new assertion he makes, every revision of his past comments, he only further undermines his credibility," McClellan told reporters.
Asked about Bush's personal reaction to the criticism from a former White House aide, McClellan said, "Any time someone takes a serious issue like this and revises history it's disappointing."
Oh the lengths we will go to defuse this ticking timebomb. Clarke came off as a strident man with nothing to hide and some damning things to say about Bush and the Bushites go into Terminator mood, ready to attack, smear, assisinate his character with extreme prejudice. Clarke in the forward to his book (GET IT READ IT) stated that he had no doubts what the reaction would be from the Bush administration to his charges.
When I think back on it, another president reacted in a similar manner to those he considered enemies: Nixon
Wherever you go, there you are.
Ripped Shirt Monkey - BOTMWriter's GuildCybertron's FinestJustice League
This updated sig brought to you by JME2
Of course, if Clarke's testimony from 2002 is consistent with this week's, it just backfires on the White House.
Any city gets what it admires, will pay for, and, ultimately, deserves…We want and deserve tin-can architecture in a tinhorn culture. And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed.--Ada Louise Huxtable, "Farewell to Penn Station", New York Times editorial, 30 October 1963 X-Ray Blues
But if his testimony in 2002 is contradicted by his testimony this week....for sure accusations that he's full of shit will stick, even though it would be obvious that he was lying for his boss in 2002.
I think Clarke made it obvious that as a member of the adminstration it was his FUCKING JOB to make his boss look good. It would be contemptuous for the GOP to claim that a member of the Bush administration was telling the truth about his boss while under his emplyee than now when he is not.
Wherever you go, there you are.
Ripped Shirt Monkey - BOTMWriter's GuildCybertron's FinestJustice League
This updated sig brought to you by JME2
And it's not just the fact he's not employed by the Whitehouse anymore. Concrete evidence in the form of letters... witnesses verifying his version of events...all combine to show Clarke is legit.
Of course, if indeed Clarke's 2002 statements contradict his current statements, the right-wing media apparatus (FOX, etc.) will be waiting in the wings to cut loose with every ounce of bullshit they can muster.
But if Clarke can convince people of the obvious, Bush gets slugged in the gut. I'm doubtful of his chances, though.
The End of Suburbia
"If more cars are inevitable, must there not be roads for them to run on?"
-Robert Moses
"The Wire" is the best show in the history of television. Watch it today.
All we're going to find out is that Clark has lied in the past because Bush told him to~ Oh wait, we know that already
"Right now we can tell you a report was filed by the family of a 12 year old boy yesterday afternoon alleging Mr. Michael Jackson of criminal activity. A search warrant has been filed and that search is currently taking place. Mr. Jackson has not been charged with any crime. We cannot specifically address the content of the police report as it is confidential information at the present time, however, we can confirm that Mr. Jackson forced the boy to listen to the Howard Stern show and watch the movie Private Parts over and over again."
Why is everyone willing to believe if the statements contradict then he was lying then and not now? I don't suppose he has any motive to lie now like a book deal, or publicity, or bad blood with the whitehouse...
oh wait.
Stuart: The only problem is, I'm losing track of which universe I'm in.
You kinda look like Jesus. With a lightsaber.- Peregrin Toker
CaptainChewbacca wrote:Why is everyone willing to believe if the statements contradict then he was lying then and not now? I don't suppose he has any motive to lie now like a book deal, or publicity, or bad blood with the whitehouse...
oh wait.
Waiting for more evidence than an Appeal To Motive.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.
Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.
CaptainChewbacca wrote:Why is everyone willing to believe if the statements contradict then he was lying then and not now? I don't suppose he has any motive to lie now like a book deal, or publicity, or bad blood with the whitehouse...
oh wait.
Well, there's the fact that the Republicans have been dragging their heels and obstructing on every aspect of the 9/11 investigation, but the second somebody who used to be in a position of power says something severely critical of them, they're trying to fast-track the declassification of his testimony to Congress, presumably because they think they can use it to discredit him.
"Carriers dispense fighters, which dispense assbeatings." - White Haven
| Hyperactive Gundam Pilot of MM | GALE | ASVS | Cleaners | Kibologist (beable) | DFB |
If only one rock and roll song echoes into tomorrow
There won't be anything to keep you from the distant morning glow.
I'm not a man. I just portrayed one for 15 years.
CaptainChewbacca wrote:Why is everyone willing to believe if the statements contradict then he was lying then and not now? I don't suppose he has any motive to lie now like a book deal, or publicity, or bad blood with the whitehouse...
oh wait.
When the president of the United States tells you to do something like, "Make my case look good," you can pretty much be assured that you'll be able to legally get away with bending the truth a little. When you make accusations that, if proven false, would border on libel, you'll be sued into oblivion. Clarke is a smart man, and there's nothing I've seen that would peg him as an opportunist who would outrightly lie just to sell a book.
Damien Sorresso
"Ever see what them computa bitchez do to numbas? It ain't natural. Numbas ain't supposed to be code, they supposed to quantify shit."
- The Onion
Stravo wrote:I think Clarke made it obvious that as a member of the adminstration it was his FUCKING JOB to make his boss look good. It would be contemptuous for the GOP to claim that a member of the Bush administration was telling the truth about his boss while under his emplyee than now when he is not.
What was it he said when asked directly if morality was involved? Oh yes, he said politics, not morality was the only thing driving his statements in his reports.
I don't know why this is so hard to accept for most Republicans. Do they really think that total honesty is the norm for people in Clarke's job position? Of course not, he is told to bend the truth, so he does. What's the problem with that? It happens every day in the real world as well, just read a corporate press release and you'd think that every company out there is suceeding brilliantly.
None of this will faze the hard-core Bush apologists though; they are detemined to crucify Clarke even though he has shown none of the signs of being either an opportunists nor a vidictive ex-employee. If anything, he has given the Bush administration much more credit then they are due during these hearings.
CaptainChewbacca wrote:Why is everyone willing to believe if the statements contradict then he was lying then and not now? I don't suppose he has any motive to lie now like a book deal, or publicity, or bad blood with the whitehouse...
oh wait.
Yeah, he was acting so partisan during the 9/11 hearings.
I do wonder about Clarke. He's put forth some interesting stuff, for sure, but if he was actually interested about his cause or in doing anyone any good, then why didn't he do this a long while back when he could have actually had an effect on something other than selling his book and the election?
Nathan F wrote:I do wonder about Clarke. He's put forth some interesting stuff, for sure, but if he was actually interested about his cause or in doing anyone any good, then why didn't he do this a long while back when he could have actually had an effect on something other than selling his book and the election?
Can you put forth any argument that isn't an appeal to motive?
A few little Richard Clarke nuggets.... (Sorry got to be true to my Right Wing Attack machine label)
Skeleton in Clarke's closet
We'd like to know how Clarke squares his contention that he was the only one in the Bush administration truly committed to thwarting terrorism before the Sept. 11 attacks with this: It was Clarke who personally authorized the evacuation by private plane of dozens of Saudi citizens, including many members of Osama bin Laden's own family, in the days immediately following Sept. 11.
Clarke's role was revealed in an October 2003 Vanity Fair article. ``Somebody brought to us for approval the decision to let an airplane filled with Saudis, including members of the bin Laden family, leave the country,'' Clarke told Vanity Fair. ``My role was to say that it can't happen unless the FBI approves it. . . And they came back and said yes, it was fine with them. So we said `Fine, let it happen.' ''
A crucial (false) claim of Clinton defenders is that the Clinton team forged an anti-al Qaeda war plan that was then handed over to the Bush administration and ignored. In his August 2002 briefing, Clarke said, "I think the overall point is, there was no plan on al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration." His book seems to confirm that, but nowhere puts it so starkly.
In his 2002 briefing, Clarke said that the Bush administration decided in "mid-January" 2001 to continue with existing Clinton policy while deciding whether or not to pursue more aggressive ideas that had been rejected throughout the Clinton administration. Nowhere does this appear in his book.
He said in 2002 that the Bush administration had decided in principle in the spring of 2001 "to increase CIA resources . . . for covert action, five-fold, to go after al Qaeda." Nowhere is this mentioned in his book.
In 2002, Clarke emphasized that the Bush team "changed the strategy from one of rollback with al Qaeda over the course [of] five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al Qaeda." This is mentioned in his book, but - amazingly - as an afterthought.
Clarke in 2002 knocked down the idea that there was irrational animus toward the Clinton team on the part of the Bushies that blinded them to the necessity of strong counterterrorism. He offered himself, kept on as a holdover from the Clinton administration, as a refutation: "That doesn't sound like animus against the previous team to me." In his book, he suggests there was such an irrational animus.
Finally, in his 2002 briefing, Clarke made it clear that there was no "appreciable" change in U.S. terror policy from October 1998 until the Bush team began to reevaluate policy in the spring of 2001 and get more aggressive. His book implausibly argues the opposite, that Clinton was on the ball and Bush dropped it.
This is just the beginning of the contradictions and mistakes.
First off, approving the evacuation of several legitimate business who's lifes may be in danger without thoroughly searching them is much, much different from ACTIVELY IGNORING terrorism for the first 9 months of a Presidential Administration.
Second, if Clarke claims that he was told to lie by the Adminstration, sure, it proves he lied...it also proves that the ADMINISTRATION lied, which is the heart of the issue.
Third, the Administration decided "in spirit" to fight al Quaeda. Well, I'm sure if everyone thinks happy thoughts, nothing bad will ever happen. Too bad they didn't commit any money to it.
Fourth, perhaps he's bringing it up at election times because he wants to INFLUENCE THE ELECTION, just like everyone else in American politics. Gee, that's horrible.
And maybe he is just doing it for opportunism. That doesn't make him any less right.
The End of Suburbia
"If more cars are inevitable, must there not be roads for them to run on?"
-Robert Moses
"The Wire" is the best show in the history of television. Watch it today.
Stravo wrote:I think Clarke made it obvious that as a member of the adminstration it was his FUCKING JOB to make his boss look good. It would be contemptuous for the GOP to claim that a member of the Bush administration was telling the truth about his boss while under his emplyee than now when he is not.
Whether he was employed by Bush or not, if he lied under oath at the classified senate briefing thats a pretty serious blow to his credibility. Lieing to make the president look good to the press is one thing (although its not good), and lieing during a congressional hearing is a whole lot worse.
HemlockGrey wrote:Second, if Clarke claims that he was told to lie by the Adminstration, sure, it proves he lied...it also proves that the ADMINISTRATION lied, which is the heart of the issue.
.
Actually, all it proves is that Clarke is a LIAR.
Third, the Administration decided "in spirit" to fight al Quaeda. Well, I'm sure if everyone thinks happy thoughts, nothing bad will ever happen. Too bad they didn't commit any money to it.
Unsubstantiated claim.
Fourth, perhaps he's bringing it up at election times because he wants to INFLUENCE THE ELECTION, just like everyone else in American politics. Gee, that's horrible.
And maybe he is just doing it for opportunism. That doesn't make him any less right.
Of course, the only possible way he could have lied in 2002 is if the Administration itself was lying. Now, they'll say he was telling the truth then and lying now, but there's no evidence to support their assertation.
The End of Suburbia
"If more cars are inevitable, must there not be roads for them to run on?"
-Robert Moses
"The Wire" is the best show in the history of television. Watch it today.
You know, it occurs to me that all this talk about tainted motives on Clarke's part will not help the Republican's argument any. After all, the Bush administration has FAR MORE motive to lie about Clarke's testimony when they have an election to lose.
Are you stupid? If Clarke lied because the Administration TOLD HIM TO LIE, was the Administration also telling the truth?
Unsubstantiated claim.
So tell me, what exactly did the Bush Administration do to fight terrorism? They ignored Clarke's plan, they disregarded the Hart-Rudman reports, memos, and various other notices, they undertook no actions to fight terrorism.
It doesn't make him any more right either.
My God, you are a dumbass. Just because Clarke is speaking before an election does not automatically make him wrong.
The End of Suburbia
"If more cars are inevitable, must there not be roads for them to run on?"
-Robert Moses
"The Wire" is the best show in the history of television. Watch it today.
